Ao

Ta

b

a

ARRA

KTRP

1

shhndetodcesm

pa

0d

Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /aap

pproaches of truck drivers and non-truck drivers toward recklessn-road behavior

ova Rosenbloom a,∗, Ehud Eldror b, Amit Shahar a

The Phoenix Road Safety Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies of Social Sciences, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, IsraelThe Research Institute of Human Factors in Road Safety, Behavioral Studies, College of Management, Rishon Letzion, Israel

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 23 September 2008eceived in revised form 4 February 2009ccepted 23 March 2009

eywords:ruck driverseckless on-road behaviorsrofessional drivers

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of the study was to compare the reported approaches of truck drivers to those of non-truckdrivers toward reckless on-road behaviors. One hundred and sixty-seven adult males, including 70 non-truck drivers, completed the questionnaires voluntarily. The truck drivers were employees of a concretemanufacturing company working at various company plants throughout Israel. Seventy were professionalmixer truckers and 27 were tip-truckers. The participants completed the Reckless Driving Self-ReportScale based on Taubman Ben-Ari et al. [Taubman Ben-Ari, O., Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., 1999. The impactof mortality salience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 76, 35–45], adapted for truck drivers for this study. It was expected that non-professional, as compared to professional (truck) drivers, would be more permissive regarding reckless

driving, since driving risks are less prominent in their daily driving experience. An ANOVA performed onmean reckless-driving scores yielded significant results. The post hoc Schéffe test indicated significantlyhigher reckless-driving scores for automobile drivers as compared to both mixer-truck driver scores andtip-truck driver scores. In addition, the reckless-driving scores for mixer-truck drivers were significantlyhigher than the tip-truck driver scores. We discuss various explanations for the findings and considerpossible implications for training strategies in organizations as well as for media campaigns focused on

uck d

mutual safe road use of tr

. Introduction

Occupational vehicular accidents involving truck drivers repre-ent a serious threat to both work safety and public health. Researchas indicated that truck driving is among the occupations with theighest risk for fatal injuries (McCall and Horwitz, 2005) thoughot necessarily due to the fault of the truckers. Professional truckrivers have a unique set of characteristics compared to those ofveryday motorists (Walton, 1999). In addition to gender (98% ofruckers are male in Israel) and age (the average truck driver islder than the average automobile driver), they are all professionalrivers, meaning that they have gone through some selective pro-esses and have had to attain certain physical, psychological andducational standards (Israeli Road Safety Authority, 2006). Thistudy investigates the differences between truck driver and auto-

obile driver perspectives regarding reckless driving.

Previous research in the field reveals several patterns, largelyointing in the direction of a more cautious set of driving behaviorsmong truck drivers, as compared to light vehicle drivers. In other

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 5741011; fax: +972 3 5741959.E-mail address: rosenbt1@mail.biu.ac.il (T. Rosenbloom).

001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.011

rivers and private vehicle drivers.© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

words, drivers of heavy trucks engage in fewer unsafe road behav-iors than do drivers in general (Blower, 1998). In addition, truckdrivers are more aware of environmental risk factors as well as oftheir own limitations as drivers (Walton, 1999). Analysis of driver-related factors in road accidents indicates that passenger vehicledriver errors or other driver factors are cited in 66% of crashes,whereas truck driver errors are cited in fewer than 30% (Blower,2002). Likewise, Craft and Blower (2004) have presented prelimi-nary statistics on 287 two-vehicle crashes from the FMCSA/NHTSALarge Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS). In crashes betweentrucks and light vehicles, the “critical reason” for the crash wasattributed to the other vehicle or driver in 70% of the cases andto the truck or truck driver in 30% of the cases (Thieriez et al.,2002).

Instrumented vehicle studies (Hanowski et al., 2007), which pro-vide a video “instant replay” of safety-related traffic incidents, havefurther corroborated the above findings. One study observed andanalyzed 210 critical incidents (driver errors resulting in poten-

tially unsafe conditions, e.g., lane change or road crossing withan insufficient gap) involving the interaction of a large truck anda light vehicle. More than three-quarters of such incidents wereattributed to light vehicle drivers in the vicinity of trucks, ratherthan to truck drivers (Hanowski et al., 2003). Consistent with

7 lysis a

t(tsa

ct(2td(ts

sCtstss1tdm

bradd(Stt

otftArw

aitntle

mateuaps

ats

Of the remaining drivers – all employees of a concrete manufac-

24 T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Ana

hese findings, commercial drivers on local/short haul operationsdefined as trips of 100 miles or shorter) listed other drivers asheir primary safety concern, followed by work related time pres-ure and inattention as causes for critical accidents (Hanowski etl., 1999).

Apparently, there is also contradicting evidence to the resultsited above. Analysis of driver-faults in road accidents revealed thatruck drivers were found to be at fault more often than car drivers48% as compared to 40.2%), in truck–car accidents (Council et al.,003). However, the majority of truck-fault accidents were eitherhe less severe rear-end crashes, or accidents involving the trucks’ead-zones; whereas car drivers were at fault with the majority71.2%) of the deadly head-on crashes. These findings are consis-ent with traffic experts’ ratings of truck related dangerous drivingituations (Stuster, 1999).

The inconsistency regarding driver (either truck or not) respon-ibility (whether truck or auto) in accidents (Council et al., 2003;raft and Blower, 2004) might reflect a minority group of less cau-ious truck drivers. This possibility would be consistent with sometudies in the field. Specifically, Hanowski et al. (2000) reported thathe local/short haul driver population consists of a small high-riskubgroup responsible for the majority of drowsy episodes, with aimilar subgroup in the long haul drivers’ population (Wylie et al.,996). Vehicle fleet safety managers estimate that the majority ofotal fleet risk (50% or more) can be attributed to only 10% of therivers, as a product of these drivers personality traits makeup, thusaintaining this ratio over time (Knipling, 2005).

Finally, converging evidence regarding more cautious drivingehaviors among truck drivers comes from Tardif (2003) whoeported that heavy vehicle drivers exceed speed limits less often,nd by smaller margins, than drivers of light vehicles, and that truckrivers involved in crashes are less likely than passenger vehiclerivers to drive under the influence of alcohol. In line with Tardif2003), Rosenbloom (2001) reported that even if their scores in theensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1978) were relatively high,ruck drivers actually engaged in fewer reckless driving behaviorshan automobile drivers.

In Israel, trucks are over-represented in road crashes, and 20%f the fatal crashes derive from only 2.2% of the total fleets, dueo their high mileage. In spite of their over-representation inatal crashes, truckers are regarded as more professional drivershan other (passenger light vehicle) drivers (Israeli Road Safetyuthority, 2006). It appears, then, that truck drivers support saferoad behavior and are known for this trait by experts and by co-orkers.

The present study compared between truck- and private-drivers’ttitudes toward reckless driving. Its main purpose was to exam-ne the proneness to reckless driving as reported by professionalruck drivers and by non-professional car drivers. We expected thaton-professional drivers, as compared to professional drivers (i.e.ruck drivers), would display a permissive approach toward reck-ess driving, as driving risks are less prominent in their daily drivingxperience.

The truck driver sample consisted of two subgroups—concreteixer drivers and tip-truck drivers, allowing (as a secondary goal)

n evaluation of some of the factors affecting truck driver attitudesoward reckless driving as derivates of their unique professionalnvironment. By sampling workers from a single concrete man-facturing company, we tried to hold constant extraneous factorsffecting professional behavior or expressed attitudes such as work-lace and legal regulations and corporate culture, maintaining a

imilar background for all professional drivers.

The process of manufacturing and delivering concrete requirespplying the mixture (of wet cement and aggregates) in a shortime after creating the mix batch, to ensure proper structuraltrength. Naturally, the wet concrete mixture is impossible to store

nd Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728

for long periods. The mixture is produced on demand, and is deliv-ered by mixer trucks as soon as possible to construction sites,where the driver dispenses the mix load. As construction sitesare often located in residential areas, additional maneuvering abil-ity is required. A wide spread of cement manufacturing plantsallows shorter routes to construction sites, resulting in a more effi-cient delivery of better quality concrete mixture (Clark et al., 2001;Weeks, 1998).

With workload and working hours dictated by construction siterequirements, mixer-truck drivers do not have a regular schedule;this can lead to long working days, irregular working hours includ-ing working intermittently as well as periods of concentrated workfollowed by long breaks. Importantly, mixer truck driving posessome unique driving challenges, such as adjusting the driving to theconstant shifts in the cargo’s center of gravity due to concrete flu-idity and the mixer truck drum’s rotating action. Furthermore, themixer operation adds a constant heavy noise in the driver’s cabin, inaddition to the more conventional noise (and vibrations) affectingmost truck drivers. These elements present additional stresses formixer-truck drivers who need to balance the professional demandswith careful driving (Clark et al., 2001).

In contrast, the company’s tip-truck drivers deliver gravel frommining sites and quarries to the cement manufacturing plants, tobe stored for future use. Tip-truck driver schedules are constant,with regular work shifts. Tip-truck drivers working for the concretemanufacturing company in the current study were all regular com-pany employees, and the vehicles they use were company owned.Driving tip-trucks poses no unusual driving challenges relative toother truck driving. Importantly, both mixer-truck drivers’ and tip-truck drivers’ operations are defined as local/short haul operations,i.e. less than 150 miles.

Subjective workload is affected not only by task-related factorssuch as the perceived mental, physical, and temporal demands, butalso by driver-related factors such as effort, frustration and per-formance (Hart and Staveland, 1987; Maincent et al., 2004). Byexamining an attitudinal factor—the driver’s self-reported prone-ness to reckless driving, we wished to elaborate on this model,allowing the inclusion of a cognitive feedback loop between theperceived subjective workload and some of the driver mental andcognitive factors (Rosenbloom, 2001).

Primarily, it can be expected that truck drivers, would dis-play a more cautious approach toward reckless driving thannon-professional drivers, as their (truck drivers) regular drivingexperience is significantly more complex than non-professionaldrivers. Secondly, it can be expected that, on the one hand, con-crete mixer-truck drivers would display a more cautious approachtoward reckless driving than tip-truck drivers, as their (mixer) reg-ular driving experience is even more complex than that of tip-truckdrivers, particularly in terms of balance and noise (see above). Onthe other hand, since schedule demands require a speedy deliv-ery, mixer-, as compared to tip-truck drivers might display morepermissive approaches toward road risks.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

One hundred and sixty-seven adult males, of which 70 werenon-professional drivers, completed the questionnaires voluntarily.

turing company working at the various company plants locatedcountrywide – 70 were professional mixer truckers, and 27 weretip-truckers. Participants were recruited using a snowball samplingmethod, i.e. participants recruited future subjects from among theiracquaintances.

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728 725

Table 1Overall and by-driver-type demographic data (frequencies and percentages) and correlations with driver type and age group.

Overall Driver type Correlation with

Non-professional Concrete mixer truck Tip-truck Driver type Age group

Age group 20–30 22 (13.2) 14 (20.0) 6 (8.6) 2 (7.4) .06 1.0030–50 98 (58.7) 34 (48.6) 47 (67.1) 17 (63.0)50+ 47 (28.1) 22 (31.4) 17 (24.3) 8 (29.6)

License tenure (years) Up to 10 35 (21.0) 15 (21.4) 17 (24.3) 3 (11.1) −.02 .65*

10–20 56 (33.5) 20 (28.6) 23 (32.9) 13 (48.1)Over 20 76 (45.5) 35 (50.0) 30 (42.9) 11 (40.7)

Professional tenure (years) Up to 10 59 (35.3) 26 (37.1) 28 (40.0) 5 (18.5) .03 .62*

10–20 50 (29.9) 15 (21.4) 24 (34.3) 11 (40.7)Over 20 58 (34.7) 29 (41.4) 18 (25.7) 11 (40.7)

Vehicle ownership Personal 89 (53.3) 53 (75.7) 36 (51.4) – .49* −.09Company 78 (46.7) 17 (24.3) 34 (48.6) 27 (100)

Vehicle class Private 71 (42.5) 70 (100) – – .91* .01Truck 96 (57.5) – 70 (100) 27 (100)

Daily drive (h) 2 37 (22.0) 34 (48.6) 3 (4.3) – .66* .092–5 25 (15.0) 23 (32.9) 2 (2.9) –5+ 105 (62.9) 13 (18.6) 65 (92.9) 27 (100)

Driving areas Central 102 (61.1) 52 (74.3) 50 (71.4) – .41* .01All areas 67 (38.9) 18 (25.7) 20 (28.6) 27 (100)

Cargo People 48 (28.7) 23 (32.9) – – −.67* −.5Goods 119 (71.3) 47 (67.1) 70 (100) 27 (100)

Model year 2007 40 (24.0) 10 (14.3) 15 (21.4) 15 (55.6) −.45* −.082006 34 (20.4) 8 (11.4) 14 (20.0) 12 (44.4)2005 20 (12.0) 10 (14.3) 10 (14.3) –2004 and older 73 (43.7) 42 (60) 31 (44.3) –

Drivers using vehicle 1 122 (73.1) 36 (51.4) 59 (84.3) 27 (100) −.43* −.052 31 (18.6) 22 (31.4) 9 (12.9) –3+ 14 (8.0) 12 (17.2) 2 (2.9) –

Roads Urban 20 (12.0) 15 (21.4) 5 (7.1) – .39* −.04))

2

dsprd

RTacfcIiarommitdtdoi

Interurban 20 (12.0) 15 (21.4Urban & Interurban 127 (76.0) 40 (57.2

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.2. Measures and procedure

Personal demographic and driving-related data, includingriver’s age group, license and professional tenure, vehicle’s owner-hip, class, and model year, the number of drivers using the vehicle,rimary vehicle use (transportation of people or goods), type ofoads used, geographical area where most driving took place, andaily driving periods, are given in Table 1.

Approaches toward reckless driving were assessed using theeckless Driving Self-Report Scale (Taubman-Ben-Ari et al., 1999).he scale, consisting of 10 hypothetical driving scenarios aimed atssessing dangerous reactions in driving, requires estimating thehances for self- or peer-action. Scales are 11-points each, rangingrom 0 to 100 representing the chance (zero chance and absoluteertainty, respectively) of acting in the manner depicted in the story.tems scores are averaged, with a higher mean score represent-ng a more lenient approach toward reckless driving. Cronbach’slpha coefficient values reported by Taubman-Ben-Ari et al. (1999)anged from .80 to .84, in studies 1 and 2, respectively. The scale –riginally used to evaluate military drivers’ attitudes – was slightlyodified to accommodate to the current study sample: minorilitary related details were changed into more befitting civil-

an settings and the question at the end of each scenario wasurned to a stranger driver (What are the chances that the car

riving in front of you will try to overtake the truck?). The lat-er change was made to overcome possible bias due to posingirect questions to the truck drivers. The modification consistedf projective elements, which are well established in psycholog-

cal procedures. Evidence for the validity of projective measures

5 (7.1) –60 (85.7) 27 (100)

has been found in the works of Bornstein (1999) and Graybill andBlackwood (1996).

Overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 10 items were .76,with respective values of .76, .73 and .74 for the mixer-truck driversgroup, the tip-truck drivers group, and the regular drivers group(see Appendix A for the 10 driving scenarios), respectively.

The participants anonymously completed the questionnaires ontheir own free time. Truck drivers delivered the forms to the fleetmanager’s company mailbox, whereas non-professional driversdelivered them by mail or personally, to the experimenters.

3. Results

Correlations between the various parameter frequencies forboth driver type and age, given in Table 1, indicate the hypothesizedrelationships exist between driver type (either non-professional,mixer-truck or tip-truck drivers) and the profession-related vari-ables. Vehicle related variables (ownership, number of drivers,vehicle class and model years, cargo type, traveling areas and roadsused and daily drive period), were all correlated with the specificline of work. A similar correlation was found between the driver’sage group and his age-related variables (professional and licensetenure).

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean reckless-

driving approach scores of the three driver groups yieldedsignificant results, F(2, 164) = 16.34, p < .001. Post hoc Schéffe testindicated significantly higher reckless-driving approach scoresfor non-professional passenger vehicle (M = 48.06, SD = 16.03,N = 70), as compared to both mixer-truck drivers scores (M = 37.16,

726 T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis a

Fp

SNea

gi6dmsSpsf

at8ntiln

wah

TI

IIIIIIIIII

to non-professional automobile drivers (Dalziel and Soames, 1997;

ig. 1. Mean reckless-driving scores as a function of the type of driver (non-rofessional, mixer truck and tip-truck).

D = 17.30, N = 70) and tip-truck drivers scores (M = 28.22, SD = 15.18,= 27), resulting in three separate homogeneous subsets, one for

ach group (p < .05). Fig. 1 displays the mean reckless-drivingpproach scores for the three drivers groups.

To ensure that any possible differences between the driverroups do not stem from the age-related variables, a preliminaryndependent samples t-test was performed on a cluster sample of0 drivers, 30 of the non-professional drivers and 30 of the truckrivers (both tip-truck and concrete mixer trucks), all being of theiddle range age group (30–50 years old). Non-professional drivers

cored higher on the reckless-driving approach scale (M = 46.97,D = 16.57) than truck drivers (M = 38.53, SD = 16.02), t (58) = 2.00,< .05, suggesting that differences in reckless-driving approach

cores did not originate from the age differences or age-relatedactors such as license and professional tenure.

Analyses of variance performed for each reckless drivingpproach self-report scale item separately (see Table 2), revealedhat a similar pattern of response appeared in items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,, 9, and 10, in which truck drivers mean scores were lower thanon-professional drivers (indicating the truck drivers’ approachesoward reckless driving are more strict), and an opposite trend ontems 1 and 7, in which non-professional drivers mean scores wereower than truck drivers (indicating a more strict approach of theon-professional drivers).

Schéffe post hoc test revealed non-professional drivers scoresere significantly higher than those of mixer truckers on items 2, 6

nd 9 (ps = .049, .024 and .008, respectively), as well as significantlyigher than tip-truckers scores on item 5 (p = .014). On items 3, 4,

able 2tem means, SDs (in brackets) and F values, for non-professional-, concrete mixer-truck, a

Driver type

Non-professional drivers (N = 70) Concrete

tem 1, White line 15.71 (20.11) 24.14 (30tem 2, Amber light 52.14 (33.88) 38.43 (32tem 3, Job interview 70.14 (27.32) 47.14 (31tem 4, After party shortcut 53.71 (34.94) 34.57 (29tem 5, Evil boss 58.71 (29.14) 48.43 (33tem 6, Overtaking 33.43 (33.18) 19.86 (23tem 7, Sharp turn in the rain 14.43 (23.87) 29.43 (34tem 8, Late to the event 57.71 (31.40) 37.71 (29tem 9, Wedding and alcohol 54.14 (31.42) 37.57 (29tem 10, Fatigue and party 70.43 (25.68) 54.29 (32

* p = .052.** p < .05.

*** p < .01.

nd Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728

8 and 10, non-professional drivers score were significantly higherthan both mixer truckers’ (ps < .01), and tip-truckers’ (ps < .001).In contrast, for item 7, concrete mixer trucker mean scores werehigher non-professional driver scores (ps = .01), indicating a morescrupulous attitude of non-professional drivers on this item.

4. Discussion

Truck driving is a complex activity, which relies on a certainnumber of cognitive skills and on their automation level and mainlydepends on the driver’s expertise (Perruchet, 1988). Moreover, psy-chological and physiological factors such as motivation, personality,cognitive style, fatigue and stress level of the driver must alsobe considered (Rosenbloom, 2001). The variability of the drivingactivity is dependant, among other factors, on the demands of theorganization (Sperandio, 1995). In addition to their responsibilityto the company and the customers, truckers are influenced by theon-road dynamics.

This study explored differences in approaches toward recklessdriving between non-professional automobile drivers and profes-sional truck drivers. A secondary goal was to examine the role ofprofessional concerns on these attitudes. The main finding was thatthere were significantly higher reckless-driving approach scores fornon-professional passenger vehicle drivers, as compared to truck-drivers, and this supports the hypothesis that truck drivers (ingeneral) would report more cautious driving approach, and thatnon-professional passenger vehicle drivers would report a morepermissive approach toward reckless driving. This finding is con-sistent with previous research in the field (e.g., Blower, 1998; Craftand Blower, 2004; Hanowski et al., 2007; Rosenbloom, 2001; Tardif,2003; Walton, 1999; for details, see Section 1), supporting the posi-tion that truck drivers are generally aware of the size and weightof their vehicles and of the enormous potential damage to life andproperty they may cause. Moreover, they are well-trained to avoiddangerous situations (Israeli Road Safety Authority, 2006).

Our main finding supports the notion that the training, exper-tise and experience of professional drivers (Glendon, 2005) such astruck drivers, underlies the differences between their views towardreckless driving compared with those of non-professional drivers.Yet several finding indicates being a professional driver does notnecessarily imbue safe driving behaviors or safe attitudes towardreckless driving. Other professional driver groups, such as taxidrivers, displayed permissive reckless driving approach compared

nd tip-truck drivers.

F

mixer-truck drivers (N = 70) Tip-truck drivers (N = 27)

.29) 12.96 (15.89) 3.01*

.86) 39.63 (29.02) 3.41**

.45) 38.89 (25.77) 16.37***

.28) 21.11 (27.22) 12.52***

.65) 37.41 (32.77) 4.78***

.74) 23.70 (30.02) 3.94**

.43) 15.93 (25.15) 5.18***

.55) 25.56 (28.47) 13.79***

.61) 39.26 (32.81) 5.55***

.24) 27.78 (31.91) 20.65***

Rosenbloom and Shahar, 2007). These findings suggest anotherattribute of professional truck driving also affected truck driver atti-tudes, possibly an awareness of the deadly implications of theirinvolvement in traffic crashes.

lysis a

drddo1irt

titupcmuaff

aTef

tctttmegi1sadimAdatsmr

rmur

4

rtobdtv

5. Your friend had a fight with his boss, again, at the end of a ter-rible day. He has a lot of work to do. Your friend takes his carfor a drive on the freeway, turns on some loud music and just

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Ana

Given that in most cases of car–truck collisions, automobilerivers are the ones usually faulted (Blower, 2002), the irregularesponse pattern in items 1 and 7, in which non-professional driversisplayed a more strict approach toward reckless driving than truckrivers, is surprising. However, these two scenarios were the onlynes in which a truck was present, either as another vehicle (item) or as the vehicle driven by the participant (item 7). This could

ndicate that non-professional drivers view truck presence on theoad and actually driving a truck as potentially dangerous, henceheir more conservative ratings.

Based on the above discussion, we recommend that referenceo the special on-road dynamics would be included in driver train-ng for both truck drivers and private car drivers. An emphasis thatruck drivers must cope with other road users and attempt to betternderstand and anticipate their on-road decisions may be appro-riate. By the same token, private car drivers must also take intoonsideration the sudden appearance of a truck and leave safetyargins in order to prevent crashes. We also can recommend to

se advanced technology, such as automatic evasive car-followingctions or other kind of actions to make it harder for truck driversor example to tailgate, to run red lights, to speed or to look awayrom the roadway for more than a critical time period.

In further research it will be useful to examine truck-drivers’pproaches toward non-truck drivers and toward pedestrians.hese can be measured through interviews or a specific inventory tolicit truck driver perceptions of road dynamics in order to preventatal encounters between trucks and light vehicles.

Differences between truck driver types were also found; tip-ruck drivers reported even more cautious driving approaches thanoncrete mixer-truck drivers. This finding may be related, either tohe different characteristics of the truck (either tip or mixer), oro the sample of the truck drivers in the present study, in whichip-truck drivers enjoy steady work conditions, whereas concrete

ixer-truck drivers’ work as freelancers. Thus, on the one hand,xplanations for the differences that were found between the tworoups of truck driver may come from organizational psychologyn general and specifically the organization’s safety climate (Zohar,980). Safety climate is defined as “a set of molar perceptions,hared by individuals with their work environment, which are valids references for guiding behavior in the execution of tasks duringay-to-day eventualities” (Diaz and Cabrera, 1997, p. 644). There

s evidence that companies with higher management’s commit-ent to safety have much less accidents (Diaz and Cabrera, 1997).

s tip-truck drivers (in the present study) enjoy steady work con-itions they might feel more committed to their working place,nd display greater compliance with safety regulations comparedo the less committed concrete mixer-truck drivers (in the presenttudy). Alternatively, the characteristic irregular working shiftsight affect concrete mixer-truck drivers, leading to fatigue and

esulting in carelessness and greater risk-taking.We recommend that a commitment to organizational safety

ules be included as part of the employment contract of concreteixer-truck drivers as well as tip-truck drivers. In addition, contin-

ing education programs conducted as a part of the organizationoutine should include the concrete mixer-truck drivers as well.

.1. Methodological remarks and future directions

The conclusions of this study are based solely on the self-eported behaviors of automobile and truck drivers. To validatehe findings of this study, future research should make use of field

bservations of truck drivers and automobile drivers. It might alsoe useful to compare the driving practices of truck drivers whileriving trucks in comparison to driving in their private cars, in ordero see whether their safety approaches are carried over into pri-ate car driving. Validation of the differences found here between

nd Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728 727

tip- and mixer-truck drivers would require matching the two groupsfor working conditions.

Another point is related to the above-mentioned interpretationof our results, that non-professional drivers seem to view truckpresence on the road and actually driving a truck as potentiallydangerous, hence their more conservative ratings, in items 1 and 7.If the presence of a truck on the road causes other drivers to have amore responsible attitude toward driving, it remains to be furtherexamined why this attitude does not lead to more cautious behaviorin the presence of trucks, as evidenced by traffic accidents.

It is worth noting here that this study’s results refer mainly totruck drivers (both to mixer and tip-trucks) and less to articulatedvehicles (such as tractor-trailers) drivers. Finally, the limitations ofthe questionnaire used in the study, particularly its “projective”style must be taken into account. The original scale items wereconverted to rather projective scenarios in order to gain a highervalidity of the responses. This adaptation may have led to someambiguity as some items refer to truck drivers while others refer tonon-truck drivers.

In sum, this study examined the differences in the approachesof truckers and automobile drivers toward reckless driving. In addi-tion, it included an analysis of some of the factors affecting truckdriver approaches toward reckless driving as derivates of theirunique professional environment. Overall, the study found thattruck driver display more scrupulous approaches toward recklessdriving than private car drivers, and that tip-truck drivers report aneven more scrupulous attitude than mixer-truck drivers. These find-ings can utilized in developing organizational training strategies aswell as in media campaigns dealing with road safety practices ofboth private car drivers and truck drivers.

Appendix A. Reckless driving scenarios

1. You are on your way to a weekend vacation. A sedan and a veryslow truck are driving just in front of you. A continuous whiteline separates your lane from the opposite traffic lane. Whatare the chances that the car driving in front of you will try toovertake the truck?

2. You and your friends are on a road trip up north. You travel inthree separate cars, with you driving the first car. The atmo-sphere in the car is good, and as your friends are not familiarwith the road you maintain eye contact with the two other cardrivers. You reach a signaled crossroad, and you drive through aflashing green light, whereas your friend in the car behind youdrives through an amber light signal. The traffic light has justturned red, what are the chances the driver of the third car willtry to drive through the red light in order to keep up with therest of you?

3. It is Sunday morning.2 Your friend is driving on his way to a jobinterview and he is going to be late. The new boss is a very strictperson and your friend feels he must not fail him. What are thechances that he will drive over 80 km/h inside city limits (wherethe speed limit is 50 km/h)?

4. Your friend meets someone at a party. He goes over and startstalking to her. He likes her and offers to give her a ride home.She agrees and shows him the way, giving exact directions. Shepoints to a shortcut leading through a no entry road. What arethe chances that he will take the shortcut?

drives. What are the chances that he will drive over 130 km/h?

2 In Israel, the first work day of the week is Sunday.

7 lysis a

1

R

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

G

28 T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Ana

6. Somebody overtakes your car just before the traffic light. Thelight has turned from amber to red. What are the chancesthat you will cross through a red light so that you can shoutat him?

7. It is winter. It is raining and it is getting dark. Your friend isdriving a full trailer truck on the highway. There is not a car inview. A signal ahead indicates a sharp turn is coming. What arethe chances that he will maintain a 120 km/h speed?

8. Your friend has to get to an important social event that starts in20 min. He is standing in a long and irritating traffic jam, andis afraid he will not make it on time. What are the chances thathe will get off road and drive over the shoulder to bypass thetraffic jam?

9. You and your friends are returning from a wedding, where youdrank a few alcoholic beverages and you all feel a little tired.Your friend is driving on the highway, and his girl friend is anx-ious to get home because she is waiting for an important phonecall due in the next half hour. What are the chances that yourfriend will drive at 140 km/h?

0. Your friend has returned home on a Thursday evening, after avery difficult week. He is very tired and is dying to get to bed,but a good friend of his is throwing a party and all of his friendsare going to be there. Your friend feels he just cannot miss it. Hetakes the car keys and goes out. What are the chances that hewill actually drive the car?

eferences

lower, D., 1998. The relative contribution of truck drivers and passenger vehicledrivers to truck-passenger vehicle traffic crashes. Publication No. UMTRI-98-25.University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.

lower, D., 2002. Vehicle condition and heavy truck accident involvement. In: Pro-ceedings of the International Truck & Bus Safety & Policy Symposium, Center forTransportation Research, University of Tennessee, and National Safety Council,Knoxville, TN, pp. 311–322.

ornstein, R.F., 1999. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests:a meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment11, 48–57.

lark, N., Dropkin, J., Kaplan, L., 2001. Ready Mixed Concrete Truck Drivers: Work-Related Hazards and Recommendations for Controls. The Center to ProtectWorkers’ Rights, Silver Spring.

ouncil, F.M., Harkey, D.L., Nabors, D.T., Khattak, A.J., Mohamedshah, Y.M., 2003.Examination of fault, unsafe driving acts, and total harm in car-truck collisions.Transportation Research Record No. 1830. Highway Safety, Traffic Law Enforce-ment, and Truck Safety, pp. 63–71.

raft, R., Blower, D., 2004. The Large Truck Crash Causation Study. In: Paper Pre-sented and Distributed at the November 17, 2004 FMCSA R&T Stakeholder Forum,Arlington, VA.

alziel, J.R., Soames, R.F., 1997. Motor vehicle accidents, fatigue and optimism biasin taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29, 489–494.

iaz, R.I., Cabrera, D.D., 1997. Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures oforganization safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29, 643–650.

lendon, I., 2005. Review of driver behaviour and training. Ergonomics 48,905–917.

nd Prevention 41 (2009) 723–728

Graybill, D., Blackwood, A., 1996. Prediction of adolescent aggression by childhoodpersonality measures: a comparison of projective procedures, self-report tests,and behavior ratings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52–61.

Hanowski, R.J., Wierwille, W.W., Gellatly, A.W., Dingus, T.A., Knipling, R.R., Carroll, R.,1999. Safety concerns of local/short haul truck drivers. Transportation HumanFactors Journal 1, 377–386.

Hanowski, R.J., Wierwille, W.W., Garness, S.A., Dingus, T.A., 2000. Impact oflocal/short haul operations on driver fatigue. Final Report (Report No. DOT-MC-00-203). US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carriers SafetyAdministration, Washington, DC.

Hanowski, R.J., Keisler, A.S., Wierwille, W.W., 2003. Light vehicle–heavy vehicle inter-actions: a preliminary assessment using critical incident analysis. Final Report(Report No. FMCSA-RT-03-013). US Department of Transportation, Federal MotorCarrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC.

Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., Wierwille, W.W., Keisler, A., 2007. A descriptive analysisof light vehicle–heavy vehicle interactions using in situ driving data. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention 39, 169–179.

Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E., 1987. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load index): resultsof empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (Eds.),Human Mental Workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Knipling, R.R., 2005. Evidence and dimensions of commercial driver differential crashrisk. In: Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on HumanFactors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design.

Maincent, A., Martin, R., Fornengo, S., 2004. Truck driver’s behaviour and rationaldriving assistance. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Traffic andTransport Psychology. Elsevier, Nottingham.

McCall, B.P., Horwitz, I.B., 2005. Occupational vehicular accident claims: a workers’compensation analysis of Oregon truck drivers 1990–1997. Accident Analysis andPrevention 37, 767–774.

Perruchet, P., 1988. Les Automatismes Cognitifs. Mardaga, Liège.Rosenbloom, T., 2001. Sensation seeking and detection of danger signals on the road.

Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Criminology, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.Rosenbloom, T., Shahar, A., 2007. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male

drivers in attitudes towards traffic regulations. Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 10, 428–435.

Sperandio, J.P., 1995. Ergonomie Cognitive. Psychologie Francaise, 40–41.Stuster, J., 1999. The Unsafe Driving Acts of Motorists in the Vicinity of Large Trucks.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washing-ton, DC.

Tardif, L.P., 2003. Speeding: climate change and road safety implications for heavyfreight vehicles. Final Report prepared for Natural Resources Canada Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Transport Canada Road Safety Directory.

Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., 1999. The impact of mortalitysalience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 76, 35–45.

Thieriez, K., Radja, G., Toth, G., 2002. Large truck crash causation study interimreport (NHTSA Interim Technical Report #DOT HS 809 527). National Centerfor Statistics and Analysis Advanced Research and Analysis, Springfield, VA.

Walton, D., 1999. Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers’perception of speed, safety, skill and consideration. Transportation Research PartF: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2, 91–113.

Weeks, J.L., 1998. Construction. In: Stellman, J.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of OccupationalHealth and Safety, Fourth Edition. International Labour Office, III, Geneva, pp.93–144.

Wylie, C.D., Shultz, T., Miller, J.C., Mitler, M.M., Mackie, R.R., 1996. Commercial motorvehicle driver fatigue and alertness study. Project Report (FHWA-MC-97-002).

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Zohar, D., 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and appliedimplications. Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 96–102.

Zuckerman, M., 1978. Sensation seeking. In: London, H., Exner, J. (Eds.), Dimensionsof Personality. Wiley, New York, pp. 487–550. (Israel Road Safety Authority:http://www.pasimlev.co.il).